- 11 -
that petitioner made a qualifying election as required by section
6015(b)(1)(E). Respondent contends, however, that the
requirements of subparagraphs (C) and (D) have not been met.
B. The No Knowledge of the Understatement Requirement
of Section 6015(b)(1)(C)
Petitioner’s case is appealable to the Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit. In omitted income cases under former section
6013(e)(1), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the
Tax Court have applied similar standards to decide whether the no
knowledge of the understatement requirement was met. See Guth v.
Commissioner, 897 F.2d 441, 444 (9th Cir. 1990), affg. T.C. Memo.
1987-522. In cases applying former section 6013(e)(1), we have
examined the facts and circumstances to ascertain whether a
taxpayer seeking relief from joint and several liability either
knew of the understatement or had reason to know of the
understatement at the time he or she signed the subject return.
See Bokum v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 126, 152-154 (1990), affd. 992
F.2d 1132 (11th Cir. 1993). If a taxpayer asserted that he did
not have reason to know of an understatement within the meaning
of section 6013(e)(1)(C), we have examined the taxpayer’s
knowledge of the transaction giving rise to the omitted income.
See id. We make the same analysis under section 6015(b)(1)(C).
See Cheshire v. Commissioner, supra at 192-193.
The gist of petitioner’s argument is that he did not know or
have reason to know that the distributions his wife received
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011